Bill Pierce
Well-known
When I first came to New York, I had many friends who had come to train and work as actors, and I took their “head shots.” These portraits, with resumes clipped to the back, were a must for submitting yourself for auditions. We all emulated the masters like Bruno of Hollywood (who had a studio in NYC) with a hard edged main light, a strong hair light and enough retouching to render skin with a porcelain like texture. There were photographers like George Hurrell who had done that brilliantly.
The head shot is of diminishing importance in a digital world that will let you attach a video clip of a performance to an email, but it still has a few uses. And I still shoot head shots for friends albeit with a soft main light and little or no hair light. The one thing that remains is the retouching. It’s a little subtler than in earlier times and much easier to do with Photoshop or specific portrait retouching programs than in olden days when working on sheet film negatives with a pencil.
The truth is I retouch every relatively close picture of a person that I give a print or send a jpg. I also lie if I am asked if the picture is retouched. I answer, “Normally, I would retouch. But in your case I didn’t have to.” And they respond with “You take better pictures of me than anyone else.” I believe I was first taught this by Douglas Kirkland who is not only a brilliant portraitist but a gentleman.
Actually, I don’t believe freezing a face and an expression under fixed lighting with micro detail and texture is the way we see people. It’s the way cameras see people. My retouched picture reflects the way I think we see people. Here’s the question. Am I a deceitful, dishonest charlatan or a perceptive and kindly photographer? Second question - are you a deceitful, dishonest charlatan or a perceptive and kindly photographer?
The head shot is of diminishing importance in a digital world that will let you attach a video clip of a performance to an email, but it still has a few uses. And I still shoot head shots for friends albeit with a soft main light and little or no hair light. The one thing that remains is the retouching. It’s a little subtler than in earlier times and much easier to do with Photoshop or specific portrait retouching programs than in olden days when working on sheet film negatives with a pencil.
The truth is I retouch every relatively close picture of a person that I give a print or send a jpg. I also lie if I am asked if the picture is retouched. I answer, “Normally, I would retouch. But in your case I didn’t have to.” And they respond with “You take better pictures of me than anyone else.” I believe I was first taught this by Douglas Kirkland who is not only a brilliant portraitist but a gentleman.
Actually, I don’t believe freezing a face and an expression under fixed lighting with micro detail and texture is the way we see people. It’s the way cameras see people. My retouched picture reflects the way I think we see people. Here’s the question. Am I a deceitful, dishonest charlatan or a perceptive and kindly photographer? Second question - are you a deceitful, dishonest charlatan or a perceptive and kindly photographer?
Cascadilla
Well-known
I think you're obviously a perceptive and kindly photographer. When I've shot head shots I also will do a bit of retouching, although I avoid the software that seems to turn out Stepford portraits.
Dogman
Veteran
I recently read an interview with Peter Lindburgh, the great fashion and celebrity portrait photographer, sadly recently deceased. He was strictly against retouching his photos. He wanted his models to look natural and hated the cleaned up perfect look that had been so prevalent in fashion photography for decades prior. In fact, he had it in his contracts with publications that there be no retouching.
I'm not a portrait or fashion photographer but I discovered I really like Lindbergh's work. He took older ladies as models and presented them without all the makeup and retouching and they were beautiful. Great photos of older women like Helen Mirren, Julianne Moore, Robin Givens, Uma Thurman, etc. But I wonder how that would work for models and actors who are not as secure in their skin as these ladies. In any event, I like Lindbergh's approach--no retouching.
I'm not a portrait or fashion photographer but I discovered I really like Lindbergh's work. He took older ladies as models and presented them without all the makeup and retouching and they were beautiful. Great photos of older women like Helen Mirren, Julianne Moore, Robin Givens, Uma Thurman, etc. But I wonder how that would work for models and actors who are not as secure in their skin as these ladies. In any event, I like Lindbergh's approach--no retouching.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I see no issues with masking of skin defects.
Question, how much taken by Jane Bown portraits were retouched?
She used natural light or bulb.
Question, how much taken by Jane Bown portraits were retouched?
She used natural light or bulb.
charjohncarter
Veteran
It is so much easier now with digital; plus better lighting (not as good as flash bulbs but good). I still long for the days of George Hurrell.
pluton
Well-known
The implied social contract between photographer and headshot client, whether donated or a commercial job, is that the photo will represent how people see them and also in a positive way. Most folks do not like how the photo-mechanical recording and reproducing machine sees them in realistic (usually unflattering) light. After all, they hired us for portraits, not instrumentation photography.
An exception might be in-character theatrical portraits.
An exception might be in-character theatrical portraits.
peterm1
Veteran
I agree. I always retouch portraits. Its part of the job. Mind you I am not being paid for it as I am not a pro. But if I were, I am certain I would retouch as well. (in that case there could, I confess, be a slightly more venal motive - the desire for repeat business.)
But the bottom line is that no one wants to look bad - it makes them feel bad. And I do not wish to make people feel bad. So no, I am not deceitful or any of the other things you mentioned. Its the distinction between a "lie" and a "white lie". And that makes all the difference.
Both of my portrait photos below were touched up a bit though not in any radical way. (In addition to some added vignetting etc for artistic effect). I tried my best to keep the photos honest and representative of how these ladies look to me as much as anything (they are both good friends) but I did make an effort to portray the sitters as I think they would have wanted to be portrayed. And that did involved shading down a few wrinkles and smoothing out a few lines or irregularities to make them a little less noticeable.
Woman's Portrait in Monochrome by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Woman's Portrait in Monochrome 2 by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
John Bragg
Well-known
Good point. Jane did not retouch beyond the usual dust spotting. She used well seasoned developer which had been heavily worked by the sports and news photographers, as witnessed by her colleague Eamon McCabe, and only Tri-X at box speed, usually with window light. She worked quickly and would shoot the whole thing in 10 minutes. I admire her work greatly, and it is a lesson in what can be achieved with simple equipment and a huge measure of talent and also a knowledge of people.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
I took a portrait with my Rolleiflex of a young Norwegian baritone, inside but with natural light. He's at that age when his skin has the odd issue from adolescent hormones, and I found the Planar on the camera to be rather too good at recording this level of detail.
Digitally I could raise the highlight level and it was sufficient to soften the effects on the face, rather than obliterate the problem. I was working on a print to send him when lockdown happened, and found that a long exposure at 00 grade of 11 seconds at f11, plus a very short 1 sec at grade 3 got me close enough, but I hadn't quite finished.
I suspect learning to retouch would increase my flexibility, but I am no artist!
A photographer friend who used to do a lot of fashion photography on film and digital had a very simple rule - model had to have perfect, flawless skin. It seemed rather harsh until I started working on this one!
Digitally I could raise the highlight level and it was sufficient to soften the effects on the face, rather than obliterate the problem. I was working on a print to send him when lockdown happened, and found that a long exposure at 00 grade of 11 seconds at f11, plus a very short 1 sec at grade 3 got me close enough, but I hadn't quite finished.
I suspect learning to retouch would increase my flexibility, but I am no artist!
A photographer friend who used to do a lot of fashion photography on film and digital had a very simple rule - model had to have perfect, flawless skin. It seemed rather harsh until I started working on this one!
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I rarely do headshots, but with two high schoolers, and their friends & cousins, I make a lot of images of faces, many times faces that are going thru teenage acne. So yeah, retouching in Photoshop is a very common practice.
When I share the images with the kids and parents, I never mention anything about retouching, and so far, no one has ever asked. My wife is very aware of this, and sometimes she'll slip me a teen photo she's taken with the request, "Can you do your thing and make this look better."
On the other hand, I'll admit to being "a deceitful, dishonest charlatan", but not because of my photo retouching.
Best,
-Tim
When I share the images with the kids and parents, I never mention anything about retouching, and so far, no one has ever asked. My wife is very aware of this, and sometimes she'll slip me a teen photo she's taken with the request, "Can you do your thing and make this look better."
On the other hand, I'll admit to being "a deceitful, dishonest charlatan", but not because of my photo retouching.
Best,
-Tim
willie_901
Veteran
Portraits have been problematic for centuries.
Ann of Cleves is a prime example.
Ann of Cleves is a prime example.
lynnb
Veteran
I don't think anyone likes an unflattering picture of themselves. An old trick was to smear vaseline (or nose oil, if I recall one photographer - I think Paul Fusco - once mentioned) on a clear filter to even out the skin tones and minimise blemishes, as I'm sure you're aware. If I'm making a portrait of someone I want to give them what they want, seen the way I see it. With digital that meant removing blemishes and subtly softening skin. Recently I've started using Instax film which produces remarkably pleasing portraits, partly due to the plastic lenses of Fuji's Instax cameras and partly due to the properties of the film. No retouching necessary!
Bill Clark
Veteran
Making portraits was an important part of my business. I really enjoyed doing them.
Gradually, my wife got to even like the portraits I made of her! I figured I was pretty good when she was happy with the results.
I once was making a portrait of an executive here in Minneapolis. He must of been in his late fifties maybe even early sixties. I showed him how he looked and when I said I could make him look ten years younger, he smiled, looked at me and said, “could you make it twenty!”
Photoshop is a blessing for me.
A “perceptive and kindly photographer?” Yes, I’m sure you fit very well into that category. My goal was to make beautiful natural looking portraits. Sometimes, particularly with a young couple, it took a glass or two of wine to get them used to being photographed!
I really enjoyed this work.
Gradually, my wife got to even like the portraits I made of her! I figured I was pretty good when she was happy with the results.
I once was making a portrait of an executive here in Minneapolis. He must of been in his late fifties maybe even early sixties. I showed him how he looked and when I said I could make him look ten years younger, he smiled, looked at me and said, “could you make it twenty!”
Photoshop is a blessing for me.
A “perceptive and kindly photographer?” Yes, I’m sure you fit very well into that category. My goal was to make beautiful natural looking portraits. Sometimes, particularly with a young couple, it took a glass or two of wine to get them used to being photographed!
I really enjoyed this work.
Ronald M
Veteran
Is the 90 Thambar set with slight softening cheating? Help them out so they get the job. All pros retouch.
My mentor used a 125 2.5 Hector at 4.0. Printers always asked how it was done and he never told.
My mentor used a 125 2.5 Hector at 4.0. Printers always asked how it was done and he never told.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Most women I know wouldn't leave home without at least a makeup foundation on their face. And therefore the way they present themselves in public is already the equivalent of retouching.
Ulophot
Ulophot
I used retouching when I reached a certain stage of my professional work, but returning years later as a non-pro, and leaving color behind to concentrate on silver printing in my darkroom, I also relinquished studio lighting and the posing "recipes" I had adopted. I strive now to bring out character, believing that generally, for my work, a successful image will bring the viewer to look beyond the accidents of physical appearance.